Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The 112 rejections of claims 1-20 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “monitoring observability data…resulting from loading resulting from executing the commands”. It is unclear resulting from loading? Or resulting from executing the commands? For the purpose of examination, examiner assumes the above limitation as “monitoring observability data….resulting from executing the commands”.
Dependent claims 2-10 is rejected because they’re depended on the rejected base claim 1.
Claim 11-20 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 1-10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holladay et al (us 2019/0139076) (hereinafter Holladay) in view of Zhong et al (us 2022/0214960).
As regarding claim 1, Holladay discloses one or more processing devices and one or more memory devices operably coupled to the one or more processing devices, the one or more memory devices storing executable code that, when executed by the one or more processing devices, causes the one or more processing devices to (see Holladay figure.1 processor 102, memory 103): receive a user load specification defining one or more types (see Holladay 0021, client provides virtual user dataset, 0026 discloses the persona data which includes type of user this data will later use for simulation).
Holladay is silent in regard to the concept of generate commands to a computing installation from simulated users having the one or more types; receive responses to the commands; and update states of the simulated users according to the responses; monitoring observability data of the computing installation resulting from loading resulting from executing the commands; and outputting a report relating the observability data to the commands.
Zhong teaches the concept of generate commands to a computing installation from simulated users having the one or more types (see Zhong 0003, 0079, generating a set of service request in simulated environment respective to type of all simulated users); receive responses to the commands (see Zhong 0003, 0083-0085, responses to the service requests); and update states of the simulated users according to the responses (see Zhong 0003, 0053, 0083-0085, different states of online service the set of user agents encounter); monitoring observability data of the computing installation resulting from loading resulting from executing the commands (see Zhong 0085, collect result of load test and analyze the result of load test of online service, generate load test report); and outputting a report relating the observability data to the commands (see Zhong 0086, sending load test result to operator).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Zhong to Holladay because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Holladay with Zhong’s teaching for the purpose of efficiently performing simulation that represent real world users (see Zhong 0003).
As regarding claim 2, Holladay-Zhong discloses user load specification specifies a simulated location of the simulated users (see Holladay 0032, user’s location).
As regarding claim 3, Holladay-Zhong discloses the simulated location indicates whether the simulated users are local or remote (see Holladay 0032, 0052, user’s location, it’s obvious to indicate the location of the user is either local or remote to indicate the user geographically locate).
As regarding claim 4, Holladay-Zhong discloses the user load specification specifies a type of use for the simulated users (see Holladay 0026-0027, type of user requested to view).
As regarding claim 5, Holladay-Zhong discloses the commands include at least one of creating an account, opening an application, invoking generation of a model, accessing a control console, performing an administrative task, or instantiating a component (see 0051,0053, different states of online service the set of user agents encounter, login, logout, simulating different user interactions etc.,). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 5.
As regarding claim 6, Holladay-Zhong discloses if the type of use is as the controller (see Holladay 0026, specific type of user/s, it is obvious that the user is of any type depends on the implementation), submit the commands through a command line interface to the computing installation (see Zhong 0053, APIs, it’s obvious to use CLI depends on the intended implementation). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 6.
As regarding claim 7, Holladay-Zhong discloses if the type of use is as the client (see Holladay 0026, specific type of user/s, it is obvious that the user is of any type depends on the implementation, also see Zhong 0003), submit the commands through a display interface (see Zhong 0037, user interface for input). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 7.
As regarding claim 8, Holladay-Zhong discloses the display interface is an application programming interface (API) (see Zhong 0053, API). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 8.
As regarding claim 9, Holladay-Zhong discloses associate the simulated users with roles in the computing installation according to the user load specification and perform role-based access of the computing installation (see Holladay 0028, characteristic of users, demographic information of user such as educated female (i.e. role), the data specify to simulation module).
As regarding claim 10, Holladay-Zhong discloses update the states of the simulated users according to the responses by updating a state machine corresponding to each simulated user of the simulated users (see Zhong 0003, 0053, 0083-0085, different states of online service the set of user agents encounter, login, logout, simulating different user interactions). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 10.
As regarding claims 11-20, the limitations of 11-20 are similar to limitation of rejected claims 1-10 above, therefore rejected for the same rationale.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUYEN MY DOAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4226. The examiner can normally be reached (571)272-4226.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tonia Dollinger can be reached at (571)272-4170. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DUYEN M DOAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459